The UnPopular Opinion: The Boondock Saints

THE UNPOPULAR OPINION is an ongoing column featuring different takes on films that either the writer HATED, but that the majority of film fans LOVED, or that the writer LOVED, but that most others LOATHED. We're hoping this column will promote constructive and geek fueled discussion. Enjoy!

The first time I watched THE BOONDOCK SAINTS, I was seventeen and immediately fell in with the 93% fresh rating from audience members on Rotten Tomatoes. A certified rotten, 17% rating from critics? Psh, I didn't care (Not that Rotten Tomatoes is necessarily the answer to everything, but it certainly is often indicative of something).

Years later, I now know the truth. This is a terrible movie. It's beyond even laughably bad and into the realm of just plain outright bad. As I re-watched it for this column, I couldn't help but keep saying things like "this doesn't make sense. This - this, it - this movie doesn't make any sense! What's going on? Why - what's - why is hap- why are they doing that?" Over and over over. At least it made this truly awful movie entertaining.

"And Shepherds we shall be For Thee, my Lord, for Thee.

Seriously, nothing in this movie makes any sense. Here are two examples of how logic runs about as deep in this movie as a paper cut - which is what I would correlate the experience of watching this movie to. Paper cut after paper cut, with some lemon juice added because writer/director Troy Duffy just felt like it.

1) Why not kill Murphy (Norman Reedus) inside his apartment? There's no need to take him out to the dumpster and kill him there. This exists only so that Connor (Sean Patrick Flanery) can do his five story leap while clutching a toilet bowl because someone decided this was a cool and necessary story element.

2) Speaking of which, after falling five-odd stories we see Connor bounce off the other Russian guy that isn't Checkov and crash knee first into the ground. Five stories, he glances off some Russian dude, smacks into the pavement knee first, and all he comes away with is a f*cking limp? And one that doesn't even last very long? No. Nein. Absolutely not.

More importantly though: THE BOONDOCK SAINTS is a movie completely based around the cheap-ass excuse of coincidence. The brothers just happen to have had a mother who insisted that they speak a minimum of six extra languages (German, Spanish, Italian, Russian, French, Latin), which also happens to be the only thing which allows the story to progress. If they didn't speak Russian, then calling the number on Checkov's pager would do nothing as they wouldn't have then known to go the hotel room, meaning they wouldn't have met killed the guys or Rocco there, etc... Not to mention the plot "development" of when Rocco sees Agent Smecker (Willem Dafoe) leaving the gay bar. This leads to Rocco following Smecker in order to kill him, which in turn leads to the brothers magically appearing at just the right time, which in its own turn leads to hearing Smecker's confession that he wants to be like the brothers, leading eventually to Smecker working with them. Duffy should have just called this movie THE LUCK OF THE IRISH and been done with it.

Power hath descended forth from Thy hand,

Oh, and how about the character inconsistencies that run throughout the whole of the film? Again, here are a few of the more offensively illogical examples:

1) Il Duce's ambush of the brothers and Rocco is extremely sloppy, and thereby goes against everything that has been established about him thus far in the film. He is supposedly "ghostlike," and yet the first time we meet him he completely f*cks this information sideways.

2) When woken up in bed by a phone call, after rebuffing the advances of the guy in the bed several times, Smecker says "What are you doing?" "I want to cuddle" the guy replies. To which Dafoe says "Cuddle? What a fag." This makes no sense either in relation to what we know about his character already or in conjunction with the offense he later takes at the Freudian slip of a detective saying "the fag man" instead of "the fat man.'

3) Why do the brothers put coins on the eyes of the dead in the hotel room? Do they actually believe in that? Why don't they do it any time before or after this one occurrence? If they do believe in it, then that does tell us something about their characters, though that "something" is, again, never replicated before or after. If they don't believe in it, then there is no reason for them to do this beyond Duffy giving Smecker another chance to be "the super-smart FBI agent."

4) This guy:

Our feet may swiftly carry out Thy commands.

Meet Rocco, a character any serious discussion of THE BOONDOCK SAINTS must bring up. He is, without a doubt, easily one of the worst characters in cinema history. F*ck you Rocco. F*ck your face, f*ck the offensive absurdity of your personality, f*ck your values and actions and choices, f*ck your childish hypocrisy, and f*ck you having a dramatic death despite the fact that you're actually a slimy little bastard who lacks a single redeeming quality.

The thing is, Rocco's presence is actually utterly grievous for another reason entirely: his existence and "friendship" with the brothers makes the least sense of all and throws the validity of the entire movie's events and characters into doubt. See, the brothers are on a mission to eradicate evil. They seek to quell the spread of villainy in the streets. And yet when it comes to Rocco? Rocco, who is a willing part of that villainy, as well as a misogynist creep and a sleaze and slime ball who gropes dead bodies and asks if he can make up for it by killing two random guys that are probably no worse than him? Not only do the brothers not kill him, but they allow him to join them in their f*cking quest. Rocco serves no use to them beyond his knowledge of the habits and hideouts of the various mafia members, which, to be fair, might be why they keep him alive and a part of their team.

But in this movie's "logic," such real-world practicality doesn't matter one bit. The brothers magically know somebody with a small arsenal in his basement - why can't they find out the details about mafia gatherings/hideouts through a different source? And later, when Rocco finally dies, the brothers are very visibly and audibly distraught. I.e. far more so than should be if he was just an informant, meaning they still considered him their best friend despite the fact that their friendship with him goes against everything they supposedly stand for.

So we shall flow a river forth to Thee, and teeming with souls shall it ever be.

Even beyond all of the above, this movie comes up sorely lacking from a filmmaking perspective too.

1) The script is littered with moments and lines that have nothing to do with anything beyond "sounding cool" - when Checkov first rolls up and says "this is no game," not only is it the most stereotypical line possible in that moment, but nobody has talked about games before. At all. His line is in reference to something that never happened.

2) The editing is choppy and plucks you out of scenes before the characters can finish their moment, meaning that scenes often lack any sort of resolution and instead flow artificially together simply because Duffy decided so.

3) The plot device of showing the before/after of an event and having Smecker figure out what happened is overused and (again) ruins the flow of the action. It's not nearly as engaging, as there are no stakes for the characters since we already know how the event turned out. It could have been fantastic if used once to good effect, allowing us to witness Smecker's deductive prowess. But after that first (or maaayyybe second) time the effect becomes boring, bland, and does not serve the story in any sort of positive way.

4) Troy Duffy can't even decide what kind of movie this is. The brothers have their mutual epiphany/call to action, waking suddenly while speaking the same lines of religious-related text, and are all of a sudden vigilantes that are willing to kill any and every bad guy they encounter with no moral hang-up about the matter? So is this an action movie with religious/spiritual undertones, an almost "mythic" tale? It would seem so, because there's no decision making process to become vigilantes. But then again, at other times the movie feels like it is trying to be a serious action flick grounded in reality. And then there are the times it lets itself be as over the top as possible, with cinematic moments happening right and left (such as falling through the ceiling and shooting perfectly despite being upside down and having barely killed anyone before). And it is from this confusion that so much of my problem with this movie stems -THE BOONDOCK SAINTS is trying to be at least three different kinds of movies at once, and so all of its individual identities suffer and what results is a limp cinematic noodle smothered in weaksauce.

In Nomine Patri, Et Fili, Et Spiritus Sancti."

I could have gotten behind a more mythic take on the already-primal nature of DEATH WISH, which is no doubt one of the many cinematic influences on THE BOONDOCK SAINTS. That is a movie which would interest me, and there are hints of it here and there. The prayer the brothers/Il Duce say is, of course, awesome. Suitably poetic, epic, and ancient sounding for its purposes here. Sean Patrick Flanery, Norman Reedus, Billy Connelly, and Willem Dafoe are all great - you can tell they're really having fun with the very bare material that is there for them to work with. But at the end of the day, one prayer + four fun and dedicated performances + slight hints of greatness + a cool opening bit of Irish music + Willem Dafoe screaming "THERE WAS A FIREFIGHT!" does not a worthwhile viewing experience make.

If only Troy Duffy had been struck by his own revelation, one that then told him to not make this movie and thereby prevented me from wasting precious minutes of my life. Alas. Well, at least I can always just watch... well... anything else.

Loved it the 1st time, & EVERY Time I see it--BDS

It always cracks me up that hatas take time out of their lives (that they want back-no less) QUOTE "If only Troy Duffy had been struck by his own revelation, one that then told him to not make this movie and thereby prevented me from wasting precious minutes of my life. Alas. Well, at least I can always just watch... well... anything else."

But....you found the time to waste in this review.....? Sure, that's logical....

If you hate a movie so much, don't watch-post a one-liner and then

It always cracks me up that hatas take time out of their lives (that they want back-no less) QUOTE "If only Troy Duffy had been struck by his own revelation, one that then told him to not make this movie and thereby prevented me from wasting precious minutes of my life. Alas. Well, at least I can always just watch... well... anything else."

But....you found the time to waste in this review.....? Sure, that's logical....

If you hate a movie so much, don't watch-post a one-liner and then go on with your life.
I love both movies and ready for the 3rd installment, thank you very much! :)

Look at me, I'm a hipster because I don't agree with the masses. I hate cult favorites and I can sit down and nit pick every little scene. I completely shoved aside the fact that this movie was fun and entertaining. I also hated Driver, because there was no driving. Oh, and I hate Xmen 1st class because those wern't the original xmen members. Hipster!

Look at me, I'm a hipster because I don't agree with the masses. I hate cult favorites and I can sit down and nit pick every little scene. I completely shoved aside the fact that this movie was fun and entertaining. I also hated Driver, because there was no driving. Oh, and I hate Xmen 1st class because those wern't the original xmen members. Hipster!

Fake

It is very obvious by this review that this guy is fishing very hard to find reasons good films are bad and vice versa. His rationality is painful to read because of how fake they are. After reading a few of these unpopular reviews I have come to this conclusion. Come on I'm over this...

It is very obvious by this review that this guy is fishing very hard to find reasons good films are bad and vice versa. His rationality is painful to read because of how fake they are. After reading a few of these unpopular reviews I have come to this conclusion. Come on I'm over this...

If you take a look back at some other over the top action flicks, like Predator or First Blood, you get the sense that the people behind those films knew exactly what they wanted them to be. Their tones are consistent throughout their runtime. This is not the case with The Boondock Saints; a movie that has no idea what it wants to be. Is it an over the top action film, a black comedy, a gritty actioner, a message movie, or a drama? It tries to be all these things and ends up being a completely

If you take a look back at some other over the top action flicks, like Predator or First Blood, you get the sense that the people behind those films knew exactly what they wanted them to be. Their tones are consistent throughout their runtime. This is not the case with The Boondock Saints; a movie that has no idea what it wants to be. Is it an over the top action film, a black comedy, a gritty actioner, a message movie, or a drama? It tries to be all these things and ends up being a completely joyless and incoherent mess.

I too liked the movie when I first saw it when I was a freshmen in college. I rewatched it a few years later and found it just downright corny. 2 guys, dressed all in black, carrying duffle bags into a building, wearing sunglasses & gloves - no need to be suspicious

I too liked the movie when I first saw it when I was a freshmen in college. I rewatched it a few years later and found it just downright corny. 2 guys, dressed all in black, carrying duffle bags into a building, wearing sunglasses & gloves - no need to be suspicious

I can't help but feel like most of the people that hate the film just hate it because it became popular. You were fine with it when it was more low key but now that its so widely popular you speak out against it. That makes you a tool. Go ahead throw me a negative, tool.

I can't help but feel like most of the people that hate the film just hate it because it became popular. You were fine with it when it was more low key but now that its so widely popular you speak out against it. That makes you a tool. Go ahead throw me a negative, tool.

Not worth your time

Its not worth your time to sit and nitpick about every little flaw in this film. It was never meant to be anything but a fun mindless flick. Sure the movie has a ton of flaws but I never really notice them because I'm having so much fun watching it. Obviously everyone is allowed to have their opinions but I don't think its worth your time to write this in depth of a review on it.

That being said the sequel was god awful and deserves every bit of criticism that comes its way. Plus Troy Duffy

Its not worth your time to sit and nitpick about every little flaw in this film. It was never meant to be anything but a fun mindless flick. Sure the movie has a ton of flaws but I never really notice them because I'm having so much fun watching it. Obviously everyone is allowed to have their opinions but I don't think its worth your time to write this in depth of a review on it.

That being said the sequel was god awful and deserves every bit of criticism that comes its way. Plus Troy Duffy is a huge asshole and a complete tool.

It's a fun film.....

When you leave your logic and common sense at home. It's not a smart film, but it was made to be fun. The style had a comic book feel like that of Crank, Shoot em up, and Smokin' aces. Trying to rationalize everything would take away the fun factor of pretty much the majority of action/comedy films. Anyways, I respect your opinion.

When you leave your logic and common sense at home. It's not a smart film, but it was made to be fun. The style had a comic book feel like that of Crank, Shoot em up, and Smokin' aces. Trying to rationalize everything would take away the fun factor of pretty much the majority of action/comedy films. Anyways, I respect your opinion.

everyone has a right to their own opinion and thats fine but please dont come off like an ass about how bad this movies flaws EVERY m ovie has plot holes and flaws and stupid inconsistencies EVERY MOIVE i could rant about almost any movie and find reasons why its stupid and scenes that would never happen it was just there because the director thought it might look cool is this best movie ever?? not even close but its fun, entertaining and i found it funny as hell and thats what movies

everyone has a right to their own opinion and thats fine but please dont come off like an ass about how bad this movies flaws EVERY m ovie has plot holes and flaws and stupid inconsistencies EVERY MOIVE i could rant about almost any movie and find reasons why its stupid and scenes that would never happen it was just there because the director thought it might look cool is this best movie ever?? not even close but its fun, entertaining and i found it funny as hell and thats what movies should be if i hated every movie that was'nt "realistic" with some of the plot divices used i would EVERY movie but it all comes down to one thing if you dont like it DONT WATCH IT!!!!

I agree with kivzirrum...

And the nostalgia factor also helps.

Watching it again a couple years ago (before watching the sequel) I felt "let down". And I can relate to Alejandro Stepenberg's (sometimes very harsh) critic because this is exactly what it felt like rewatching the movie.

Now, with some distance, I can simply appreciate it for the same reason I'd tenderly look back on my teenage years' crushes: stupid, but endearing nonetheless. You have to appreciate it for what it is, however incredibly flawed it

And the nostalgia factor also helps.

Watching it again a couple years ago (before watching the sequel) I felt "let down". And I can relate to Alejandro Stepenberg's (sometimes very harsh) critic because this is exactly what it felt like rewatching the movie.

Now, with some distance, I can simply appreciate it for the same reason I'd tenderly look back on my teenage years' crushes: stupid, but endearing nonetheless. You have to appreciate it for what it is, however incredibly flawed it might be... Which is a little bit part of its (amateurish) charm.

You also have to take into consideration that in order for this column to "work" (i.e. initiate debate and constructive criticism on OUR part), the author has to take an extremist's point of view and be either overly positive, denying most if not all flaws, or the total opposite. Otherwise, it would simply fall flat and we wouldn't be compelled to pitch in.

I agree with Kurious Jorge

Look, I see where the opinion comes from. The movie definitely suffers from repeated viewings. But what you have to understand is that all of the love isn't for all the components that make a good movie. The love and adoration of the movie is for the cheesyness, the over-the-top action, the ridiculous one-liners. Basically, it was a bad action movie heightened by great actors. All of the inconsistencies the review listed are at least partially addressed in the sequel, and admittedly the sequel

Look, I see where the opinion comes from. The movie definitely suffers from repeated viewings. But what you have to understand is that all of the love isn't for all the components that make a good movie. The love and adoration of the movie is for the cheesyness, the over-the-top action, the ridiculous one-liners. Basically, it was a bad action movie heightened by great actors. All of the inconsistencies the review listed are at least partially addressed in the sequel, and admittedly the sequel was the weaker installment, but I feel it's still worth a look. Even so, the movie has achieved cult status on the fact that the characters you call weak are still fascinating because of the incredible performances of Sean Patrick Flannery (great in Powder, if ya didn't already know), Norman Reedus (Man, he's one of the best parts of The Walking Dead!) and Billy Connolly (Loved him in Fido). And despite the fact that Willem Dafoe hammed it up as a gay detective, he gave the character layers that one wouldn't get from most actors. The fact that he called his gay lover a fag just means that he wanted someone who was gay but could hang with the guys... it was a typical male reaction to a non-typical situation. Look, if you watch it again, watch it for the over-the-top non-stop action, or perhaps the nostalgia of your original love for the movie nearly 15 years ago. Or simply don't watch it again if it aggravates you that much. I still love the movie, I don't really care if it's not technically sound. Also, I can't wait to read your UnPopular Opinion of Drive 13 years from now. It should be a hoot.

Damn...Haters

This movie is getting a lot of hate on here I see. I was going to go through and point out every single thing, that I disagree with in your article, but it would pretty much require me to write my own article. With all the negativity here I have to say something, though. Pretty much the only thing I DO agree with is the rough editing. Your biggest compalaint is the over-the-topness of it. What action movie that has come out pretty much since the 80s isn't over the top? Character

This movie is getting a lot of hate on here I see. I was going to go through and point out every single thing, that I disagree with in your article, but it would pretty much require me to write my own article. With all the negativity here I have to say something, though. Pretty much the only thing I DO agree with is the rough editing. Your biggest compalaint is the over-the-topness of it. What action movie that has come out pretty much since the 80s isn't over the top? Character development? The part where they fall through the roof and still manage to kill everybody? All of the baddies were RIGHT IN FRONT of them and they were spinning slowly. Upside down or not, they are still just shooting at shapes. That is definitely not even close to the most ridiculous gunfight scene I've ever seen. The character development? What more do you need to know about them? Maybe, the brothers past was meant to be a mystery. (Maybe their mom taught them six languages because she already knew the vigilante day would come for them like it did their father..?) Obviously, they haven't been perfect little angels their entire lives. Which would explain their friendship with Rocco, who goes against their RECENTLY ACQUIRED mission to destroy all evil. And to that point, Rocco isn't really "evil". He probably never even killed anybody before he was sent on the suicide mission. While every person is entitled to their opinion, I felt somebody had to speak up in defense of this movie and these are a few of my opinions. Overall, it is an entertaining movie if you don't try to nitpick the entire thing. (Just like any other action movie you see.)

Looks like your opinion is popular here but idk how many times I have heard how good this movie is. I thought it sucked and tried too hard. It seemed like they were trying to make the protagonists really bad ass and a lot of the younger impressionable kids who saw this bought into it.

Looks like your opinion is popular here but idk how many times I have heard how good this movie is. I thought it sucked and tried too hard. It seemed like they were trying to make the protagonists really bad ass and a lot of the younger impressionable kids who saw this bought into it.

Unpopular Opinion?

Yeah, I never liked this movie. The sequel is even worse. In fact, the only reason I watched the sequel is because I was drunk as all hell and wanted to laugh at something terrible. Rocco is fucking irritating, the Saints are weak characters, and the whole thing just plays like a Tarantino film student trying to one-up Tarantino and failing hilariously. Only, I'd been told forever that this movie was amazing. I wasn't prepared. It pissed me off.

Yeah, I never liked this movie. The sequel is even worse. In fact, the only reason I watched the sequel is because I was drunk as all hell and wanted to laugh at something terrible. Rocco is fucking irritating, the Saints are weak characters, and the whole thing just plays like a Tarantino film student trying to one-up Tarantino and failing hilariously. Only, I'd been told forever that this movie was amazing. I wasn't prepared. It pissed me off.

I agree with all your points save for one- the limp thing. In any action film there will be an amount of abuse/ injuries that the main hero take that should be worse than they appear to be. That's part of the escapist fun of action films. Aside from that, I agree 100%. This movie lacks focus, engaging characters, etc.

I agree with all your points save for one- the limp thing. In any action film there will be an amount of abuse/ injuries that the main hero take that should be worse than they appear to be. That's part of the escapist fun of action films. Aside from that, I agree 100%. This movie lacks focus, engaging characters, etc.

It was all about the timing

When Boondocks Saints was released back in 1999. It broke the mold of what all action movies were at that period of time. It was an action movie that was only about the characters and the actions they made and how far were they going take there vigilantism. I still agree that the movie was overrated.

When Boondocks Saints was released back in 1999. It broke the mold of what all action movies were at that period of time. It was an action movie that was only about the characters and the actions they made and how far were they going take there vigilantism. I still agree that the movie was overrated.

I like the blow-by-blow examination of what is wrong with this movie. But I also agree with Elder Predator in the meh-ness of it. After all, Willem Dafoe is great here. The thing that always bothered me is the ending when they show those documentary interviews. I'm not opposed to having that argument, but unlike "Death Wish," this movie does a piss-poor job of giving us anything to debate about. The villains are all cartoons just waiting to be killed. And thank you for pointing out what a

I like the blow-by-blow examination of what is wrong with this movie. But I also agree with Elder Predator in the meh-ness of it. After all, Willem Dafoe is great here. The thing that always bothered me is the ending when they show those documentary interviews. I'm not opposed to having that argument, but unlike "Death Wish," this movie does a piss-poor job of giving us anything to debate about. The villains are all cartoons just waiting to be killed. And thank you for pointing out what a useless, amorall asshole Rocco really was.

Thank god I'm not the oly one!

I've always hated this piece of shit(movie is too great a word for it) it features a great Willem Dafoe performance and Billy Connolly is allright as usual. But those are the only (slightly) redeeming features of this shitfest. I do love Overnight Sensation though!

I've always hated this piece of shit(movie is too great a word for it) it features a great Willem Dafoe performance and Billy Connolly is allright as usual. But those are the only (slightly) redeeming features of this shitfest. I do love Overnight Sensation though!

Never understood the love for this film, besides an awesome performance from Dafoe it always felt like an overrated turd even when i was a teen pothead. Still I think ur in-depth examination is a bit much, ur giving this film more time and effort then it deserves. just state its a film that loses its head up its ass because it thinks its super cool (much like Duffy himself, watch "Overnight" for confirmation) then be done with it. Isn't this the second time its been brought up here anyhow?

Never understood the love for this film, besides an awesome performance from Dafoe it always felt like an overrated turd even when i was a teen pothead. Still I think ur in-depth examination is a bit much, ur giving this film more time and effort then it deserves. just state its a film that loses its head up its ass because it thinks its super cool (much like Duffy himself, watch "Overnight" for confirmation) then be done with it. Isn't this the second time its been brought up here anyhow?

Word

While I agree with you that Boondocks Saints is def shitty (aside from Willen Dafoe just being awesome), however, some of your criticisms are a little silly. You're complaining about coincidences in movies?

You have seen a MOVIE before, right?

While I agree with you that Boondocks Saints is def shitty (aside from Willen Dafoe just being awesome), however, some of your criticisms are a little silly. You're complaining about coincidences in movies?

This movie divides people. Those that like it, seem to love it. Those that don't seem to hate it. Personally, I love it. Always have. Still do. It has flaws, but I can easily ignore those because I enjoy the dialogue, acting, and action. It's catchy. I'm not really concerned about the logic of the film. It fits because it's necessary to move the film from one point to another. For me, it's there to have the actors act cool, the dialogue to be catchy, and the action to push forward. That's what

This movie divides people. Those that like it, seem to love it. Those that don't seem to hate it. Personally, I love it. Always have. Still do. It has flaws, but I can easily ignore those because I enjoy the dialogue, acting, and action. It's catchy. I'm not really concerned about the logic of the film. It fits because it's necessary to move the film from one point to another. For me, it's there to have the actors act cool, the dialogue to be catchy, and the action to push forward. That's what I care about here, and for me the film delivers. But on another note, hasn't this film been done before for UNpopular Opinion? Or was that Black Sheep on Arrows page. Cause I know one column or the other already covered this film and how terrible they thought it was. Man, people who hate this film really hate it....